Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
125
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held at Ashow Village Club on Thursday 9th
March 2017 at 7.00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman – Councillor R Hancox, Councillor H Fryer, Councillor J. Mackenzie,
Councillor D Jack, Cllr J Astle, District Councillor N. Harrington, County Councillor W
Redford, District Councillor P Redford
From Bubbenhall Council: Cllr Shattock and Cllr Lucas
From Baginton Council: Cllr Bush
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
5 members of the public were present.
Standing orders were suspended for the first item.
110. Report from Dave Barber from Warwick District Council on the Local Plan.
Dave Barber from Warwick District Council addressed the Council with a progress report on
the Local Plan. (The report is annexed at pages 146 - 155)
Mr Barber, introduced himself as the Policy and Projects Manager for Warwick District
Council. He has spent the last few years focused on local plan. Mr Barber informed the
Parish Council that the Local Plan is a strategic document which sets the framework for local
development, and stressed that the plan is not full of detail.
The Plan has been a long time in the making. In January 2015 the Local Plan was submitted
to the Planning inspectorate. At a hearing in May 2015, the conclusion was that the plan was
unsound, as it didn’t deal with Coventry’s housing need.
The result was a suspended plan, which meant a pause in the examination by the Planning
Inspector. Warwick District Council used this pause to rectify the point raised by the
Planning Inspector and to investigate the unmet housing need in Coventry.
The plan was amended during the period July 2015 – May 2016. Warwick District Council re
submitted the amended plan back to the Planning Inspector in June 16.
In Autumn 2016 a period of hearings began, which ended in December. The Planning
Inspector has made some modifications to the plan, and a consultation on the inspectors’
modifications is about to begin.
Mr Barber confirmed that at the end of next week, Warwick District Council will be
informed of a start date for the 6 week period of consultation regarding the modifications.
The Planning Inspector has asked that the modifications are kept confidential until the
consultation starts. Mr Barber confirms that the vast majority of the plan remains
unchanged.
126
When the consultation is finished, the Planning Inspector will submit a final report to the
District Council. Warwick District Council will then consider whether to adopt the plan.
If the plan is adopted it will be confirmed in July or August. The plan will then become the
policy framework for planning decisions over the next 15 years; allocating land for purposes,
and outlining planning policies.
Mr Barber referred the Parish Council to Map 1 (page 149) which outlines the planned areas
for new housing.
In order to meet Coventry’s unmet housing need, the District Council need to build a
minimum of 16,770 houses. Mr Barber confirmed that the Council has allocated additional
land over and above this and made provision for 18,000 houses.
2200 houses are planned for the South of Coventry, 4500 are planned for the Kings Hill area.
In Kenilworth 2000 houses are planned – 1500 at the Eastern edge plus more at the sites of
the existing high school at Kenilworth. Mr Barber confirmed that the high school is to be
relocated.
At the Northern edge of Leamington 500 houses are planned, with 5,000 at the southern
edge of Warwick and Leamington. Mr Barber confirmed that 950 houses are planned for
brownfield areas, although due to the nature of the land in Warwickshire there is a limited
supply of brownfield land.
Mr Barber confirmed that the numbers of houses mentioned don’t add up to the required
16770 houses as there are a number of areas which he had not mentioned.
Mr Barber confirmed that the District Council also need to provide more employment land
to meet unmet employment need for Coventry. 6600 jobs need to be provided.
The employment plan includes the Gateway at Coventry airport, which has 120 hectares.
This will meet the needs of Coventry and Warwickshire.
Part of the employment plan includes other allocations in Kenilworth and Warwick
In Stoneleigh and Ashow this includes Stoneleigh Park and the golf club at Deer Park.
Mr Barber confirmed that the Local Plan includes provision for infrastructure including
transport, schools, hospitals, and GP surgeries.
It also includes the need for parks, open spaces, sports facilities and emergency facilities.
These will be delivered alongside the delivery of housing.
The infrastructure delivery plan also includes specific proposals, for example road junctions,
and primary and secondary schools. The District would also need to increase Warwick
hospital’s capacity.
127
Mr Barber confirmed that the infrastructure requires £3 million worth of infrastructure,
which will be enabled through Section 106 agreements and sources of funding from
developers.
The District Council will also be looking to maximising land sales, for example at
Kenilworth school, and to raise money from Government grants.
The Planning Inspector will be asking whether the infrastructure is realistic.
(At 7:19 pm another member of the public arrived).
Mr Barber then opened the presentation to questions.
Cllr H Fryer asked Mr Barber to amplify his comments regarding housing numbers. Is there
going to be any change to numbers? Mr Barber confirmed that the need for 16770 houses
remains and no significant change is expected.
Cllr Shattock wanted more information on the Consultation process and asked whether the
Planning Inspector had been in communication formally with WDC
Mr Barber confirmed that the Planning Inspector had been in contact with the Planning team
to request documents and maps, but no formal negotiations had taken place.
Mr Barber confirmed that the consultation starts next week and will last for 6 weeks. The
District Council has a distribution list and Parish Councils will receive an email with details
on consultation.
Cllr Shattock asked what are we being consulted on?
Mr Barber answered that the Inspector’s assessment is against the plan submitted in 2015.
The plan can be made sound with changes, plus additional changes from the Inspector.
So the consultation is on any change from the 2015 plan. Some aspects of the plan will be the
same as in the 2015 consultation.
Cllr Shattock asked whether Parish Councils are required to comment on the soundness of
the plan.
Mr Barber confirmed that this is the case. However if an aspect of the plan has been
commented on in past this does not need to be repeated.
For example, any comments on the Kings Hill development that were made last year will be
taken into account. If there is a change or slight amendment, the District Council invites
further comments
Cllr Shattock also asked about the proposal of setting land aside to accommodate 18000
houses and expressed concern regarding the possibility of developers creating land banks
and taking land out of the green belt.
Mr Barber confirmed that the Inspector will look at this and advise whether there is too
much or too little land set aside.
128
The District Council must deliver 16700 houses. If the District Council only allocates land for
the minimum amount of housing there is a risk that the housing need will not be met.
Cllr J Astle asked whether, as one third of the planned houses are for Coventry, to meet their
unmet need, will Coventry Council therefore be meeting one third of the planned
infrastructure cost?
Mr Barber answered that most of these costs come from developers and grants so Councils
won’t be paying this. He also confirmed that the system does not work like this, and that
Warwick District Council cannot fund housing for Coventry.
Cllr J Astle expressed a concern regarding possible traffic implications and asked why traffic
in Stoneleigh had not be identified as a problem.
Mr Barber stated that a colleague from Warwick District Council had been asked to provide
data regarding traffic implications, and that Stoneleigh had not been identified as a scheme
that needs improvement. But does Mr Barber did agree that there may be traffic problems
that need to be resolved, but this was not outlines in the Local Plan.
Cllr J Astle questioned why traffic issues in Stoneleigh are not outlined in the Local Plan.
Mr Barber confirmed that the Local Plan did not cover local issues as it is a strategic
document.
Cllr J Astle maintained there as there are 4500 new houses in this area outlined in the plan,
will be local issues regarding traffic.
Mr Barber stated that there is a traffic modelling process in place which identifies all
problems and what highways investment is needed. But at this level, these impacts are not
as great as other impacts which need to be resolved.
Cllr N Harrington enquired that as there are 16000 houses outlined in the Local Plan, will
this help or influence other development. For example, if housing is planned that falls
outside housing need does this influence the planning decision.
Mr Barber agreed that this will indeed help a lot, and that Warwick District Council will be
able to refuse applications and win on appeal.
Cllr N Harrington asked about Traveller sites, which are not outlined in the Local Plan.
Do these sites have to be outside the Green belt? Cllr N Harrington asked when Warwick
District Council will have an answer regarding the Traveller sites.
Mr Barber confirmed that the Traveller sites do not have to be outside the green belt, and can
be allocated in the green belt if all other options not suitable. Mr Barber stated that it is much
129
more difficult to allocate Traveller sites within the Green belt but this can be done, although
the Council cannot approve planning applications in Green belt land for Traveller sites.
Mr Barber outlined the timetable for a plan regarding Traveller sites. A report will be
submitted to the Council Executive between April and June regarding what the options are
and what needs to be done. The Council are 18 months away from having an adopted plan
regarding sites for Travellers.
Mr R Fryer stated that during the previous enquiry into the Local Plan is was clear that
Warwick District Council had accepted numbers from Coventry regarding housing. Mr
Fryer asked was there a critical re-appraisal on this key issue, and if so why did Warwick
District Council still accept excessive housing numbers from Coventry.
Mr Barber confirmed that the creation of the plan involved a rigorous process. In 2015,
Councils in Warwick and Coventry jointly commissioned a new housing needs study across
all authorities in Coventry and Warwickshire. This study broke down the housing need
across Coventry and Warwickshire.
Coventry had evidence that the housing need could not be met, and provided updated
housing supply assessments. The evidence was opened up for scrutiny. Warwickshire
helped Coventry identify land for 400 houses. Warwick District Councillors were satisfied
that authorities in Coventry had maximised the housing land supply and there was
therefore a good case to ask Warwickshire to take a proportion of the housing need.
Warwickshire will provide 330 houses per year to meet the need of Coventry, over a 15 year
period.
Mr R Fryer stated that Solihull Council has refused to accept the unmet need from Coventry.
Will Warwickshire therefore have to provide more housing?
Mr Barber stated that the housing study was for the Coventry and Warwickshire area. As
Solihull sits within Birmingham it is therefore separate from Coventry and Warwickshire.
Mr R Fryer argued that Solihull, Coventry and Warwickshire have joined together in a
unified planning policy
Mr Barber answered that this is not the case.
Cllr H Fryer asked how advanced Coventry are with their Local Plan, and Mr Barber
confirmed that Coventry are at the same stage as Warwickshire.
At this point a member of the public asked what is the purpose of the consultation.
Mr Barber answered that the Planning Inspector wants to make sure that the changes he has
made are robust and that he is reaching the correct conclusion. The Inspector will also take
any comments on the Consultation into account.
130
Mr Barber referred to the second map (page 150) and stated that it showed a new village
boundary with limited infill housing development. As the village of Stoneleigh is quite
densely built up there are not many open areas, so there are expected to be small numbers of
housing.
Mr Barber also confirmed that the Stoneleigh Deer Park has been allocated an employment
commitment, and that the District Council has a policy that supports development in
Stoneleigh Park. Stoneleigh Park will retain its green belt status, however there is potential
for some additional employment related development within the park.
Mr Barber stated that the plan includes a safeguarded area for HS2.
Cllr H Fryer asked about Stoneleigh Park. At the moment the size is defined, will there be
plans to improve or increase the built up area.
Mr Barber explained that there are no proposals to expand. In the short term, any users of
Stoneleigh Park who will be displaced by HS2 – will be helped by the District Council, to
help to find a suitable solution.
Cllr J Mackenzie argued that current users of Stoneleigh Park will receive compensation
from H2 anyway, so why do Warwick District Council have to help by allowing further
development?
Mr Barber explained that he is not sure of the details as to where any new development will
be, but that Warwick District Council takes the view that Stoneleigh Park is an important
part of the local economy. Warwick District Council wants this to continue. The current
users of Stoneleigh Park might get compensation but will still need the facilities that enable
them to be effective in providing employment and rural innovation.
At this point Mr Barber referred to the third map (page 151) which showed the Kings Hill
area. 4000 houses have been allocated to this area, 1800 during this plan period and 2200
beyond 2029. The plan does not show infrastructure proposals or important ecological assets
on site, for example Ancient monuments, Wainbody Woods etc. All of these will be
protected from development. Warwick District Council will make sure that all of these
assets are carefully taken account of. Mr Barber confirmed that a new secondary school plus
1 or 2 primary schools will be built, plus a local centre, with shops and a community centre.
Mr Barber also confirmed that there will be improvements to the highway.
The Stoneleigh / A46 junction will receive £20m of investment, with plans for a double
graded roundabout and increased capacity of the junction. It is hoped that these will
alleviate existing problems such as the traffic at Gibbet hill, and have an impact on the A429
between Leamington and Kenilworth.
131
Cllr H Fryer raised the question of education. The Kings Hills site is surrounded by 4
schools, yet this area is divided by the Coventry boundary. Mr Barber was unsure how the
school places would be allocated.
(At this point in proceedings Martin Smith from STaG left the meeting)
Mr M Innocent asked what will happen to the Ancient bridge in Stoneleigh.
Mr Barber answered that the traffic modelling survey does not show the bridge as an issue –
so did not know the answer.
Cllr J Astle stated that this was raised as an issue last time.
Cllr J Mackenzie enquired about the most recent traffic model. Is there a model that
incorporates all housing, traffic and HS2 construction? The current traffic model seem to
take into consideration all of those issues but does not recognise that Stoneleigh will have
more traffic.
Mr Barber stated that there is some traffic modelling associated with Stoneleigh.
Cllr J Mackenzie asked if the Parish Council could we see the traffic model. Mr Barber
confirmed that he will send this to the Parish Council.
Cllr H Fryer asked whether a feasibility study for a bypass in Stoneleigh is being prepared.
Mr Baber confirmed that it is.
Cllr W Redford stated that Peter Butlin from Warwickshire County Council has given
assurance that he will come back and discuss the findings of the feasibility study with the
Parish Council.
Mr R Fryer asked about the major new road linking Stoneleigh Park to Kirby corner /
Warwick Uiversity and wondered whether this is outlined in the Local Plan?
Mr Barber agreed that it is in the Local Plan, and directed the Parish Council to the map
showing Westwood Heath map. 425 houses are planned for Westwood Heath. The area
includes safeguarded land, as consideration is being given to a new road from the A46 at
Stoneleigh junction to Westwood Heath, and maybe onto the NEC in Solihull. There are 3
stages to that road. The first stage is essential development which has been planned and
funded, so the improvement to Stoneleigh junction will happen. This is part of the Local
Plan.
The second stage is still at consideration stage and does not for part of the local plan. The
Council are looking into obtaining money from the government and hope to create links to
the University and Westwood Heath.
There are no details regarding the third stage of the road at present.
Mr R Fryer stated that Coventry has a future proposal for a major road going to the North,
and enquired as to whether this proposal should this be available for people to discuss.
132
Mr Barber answered that when a road has enough commitment and is formally designed
and supported, there will be a public consultation. At the moment this road proposal is not
open for consultation, and cannot be included in the Local Plan as it is still at concept stage.
Mr Barber drew the council’s attention to map 4 (page 152) showing houses planned for
Kenilworth, in the Thickthorn area.
Cllr J Mackenzie expressed a concern regarding flooding, and stated that the village of
Ashow had received no support from Warwickshire County Council so far. There is a
concern that due to the new planned housing there will be new hard standing on high land,
which will affect Ashow as it is at the lowest point near the river.
Mr Barber stated that he was aware of these issues, and they were included in the flood risk
assessment as an issue that can be mitigated during the housing development. Details of
which will be part of the subsequent planning applications.
Cllr Mackenzie argued that there are still issues now, with planned flood prevention work
still not finished in Ashow.
Mr Barber confirmed that the necessary work will happen, and that Warwick District
Council will follow through on this. He stated that the developers will pay for this, as this
will be a planning condition. Each application will contain a hydrology report, outlining
how water will be retained at the site.
Mr R Fryer asked about the proposed road to Westwood Heath which has not been outlined
in the Local Plan. However the Thickthorn development needs a dual carriageway along the
A452. This was not detailed in the Local Plan previously - has it now been added?
Mr Barber confirmed that this was an error and that there is not going to be a dual
carriageway. A note has been added to the Local Plan to this effect, and the Inspector has
been informed. Mr Barber confirmed that there will be a dual carriageway from the
Thickthorn Development, to Bericote Road then this will revert back to a single carriageway,
becoming a dual carriageway again at the Blackdown roundabout.
There will also be a new bridge across the Avon.
Cllr H Fryer asked whether the requirement for a dual carriageway is dependent on the
Kings Hill and Thickthorn developments, plus developments at North Leamington.
Mr Barber agreed with this observation.
Cllr D Jack asked Mr Barber to confirm the employment allocation written on the map
alongside the A46. What sort of employment allocation will this be?
Mr Barber confirmed it will be mainly light industrial employment.
133
In reference to Map 5 (page 152) showing Baginton and Bubbenhall, Mr Barber confirmed
that this proposes a sub region employment site, south of the A45, running alongside the
main runway. The dotted line forms the boundary of area kept in the Green belt.
There is a housing allocation of 80 houses, along the southern edge Baginton.
Cllr Walsh asked whether there are proposals for infrastructure in Baginton. Mr Barber
confirmed that there are plans for infrastructure, and that there is potential for a new road
down the western edge of the runway.
Cllr H Fryer asked whether the Inspector will question the area of land available. Currently
the requested land is in excess of the required amount.
Mr Barber confirmed that this is a very heavily debated issue, and that the Council need to
wait and see what the Planning Inspector says. Warwick District Council has 100 hectares of
unmet employment land need, and need to make up the shortfall.
Mr R Fryer, stated that during the original enquiry, the District Council needed to complete
a sustainability assessment for the sub region and asked whether one has been done?
Mr Barber answered that the District Council has followed legislation which states there is a
requirement is to do a sustainability appraisal of the Local Plan, which includes the sub
region site. A full assessment is not needed as there is not sub region plan just a Local Plan.
Mr R Fryer argued that there must be sustainability, so surely the plan is not valid?
Mr Barber confirmed that the District Council do not have to do a formal appraisal as the
sub region is part of the plan as a whole. There is a balance needed between two factors; the
loss of open land and unemployment. All of these factors are taken into account by
Warwick District Council and the Inspector.
Cllr Shattuck asked Mr Barber to repeat the information regarding the proposed road
paralleling the runway at Coventry Airport.
Mr Barber confirmed that there are proposals by landowners which will form part of
planning applications, to use a road which skirts the western edge of the runway to access
the area to the south of runway.
Mr Barber asked whether a submission was made by the Parish Council regarding the Local
Plan previously. It was confirmed that this was the case.
The Parish Council thanked Mr Barber for his attendance.
Mr Barber and 4 members of the public left the meeting. 3 members of the public remained,
and standing orders were re-instated at 8.25 pm.
134
111. Minutes
The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 9th February 2017 were signed by the
Chairman.
112. Matters Arising from the minutes
Local Plan
This was discussed at the beginning of the meeting, during the presentation from Mr Dave
Barber from Warwick District Council.
HS2
Cllr H Fryer confirmed that the HS2 Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Clerk reports Susan Bridges, the Engagement Manager for HS2 will be attending the
Parish Council meeting on 13th April 2017.
Cllr Hancox reminded the Council that there is a 15m Community Benefit Fund from HS2
for the shire counties along the route to London. Each project bid must be for less than £75k
in total, although the Council can bid for money to put towards a project.
Martin Smith from STaG has offered to help the Parish Council with this.
Cllr Hancox asked the Council which project would be the preferred option. The final
choices were broadband for Ashow and Stoneleigh Abbey, or a footpath linking the two
villages.
Cllr H Fryer stated that a footpath along the B4115 would be especially important to allow
pedestrian access, particularly in the light of the expected heavy HGV traffic for the building
of HS2.
Cllr H Fryer mentioned that the Parish Council have requested a Health and Safety audit
from the County Council, as HS2 don’t use B roads usually.
Cllr J Mackenzie stated that there is no reason why the footpath has to follow the B road,
and suggested that perhaps in conjunction with Stoneleigh Abbey, that historic walks could
be reinstated, eg past Grecian lodge. Working with Stoneleigh Abbey and HS2 together
could result in the cost of the path becoming cheaper than previous estimates.
Cllr J Makenzie felt that a footpath connecting the villages would be a symbolic gesture, and
would be used be the whole community.
Cllr R Hancox asked whether the broadband is still a considered option. Cllr J Mackenzie
suggested that it may be best to leave the suggestion for broadband, as there may be the
possibility of getting funds for broadband from elsewhere.
Cllr W Redford stated that he recently attended working group meeting, and confirmed that
a seminar on the Community Benefit Fund will be held on 18th May at Shire hall from 9 – 1
pm. All associations will be invited, and there are 62 places, thus limiting numbers to 1 or 2
135
representatives from any group. Cllr W Redford confirmed that there is no completion date
set for the benefit fund, it is a rolling programme. However each group will only able to
make one application every 6 months. If an application is not approved, it will not be re
considered. The County Council website has the funding application form and guidance for
local groups, and Cllr W Redford advises all applicants to delay submitting an application
until after attending the seminar.
Cllr J Mackenzie wanted to confirm this, as the application date opened on 8th March.
Cllr W Redford answered that the seminar is being held to make sure that Warwickshire
applications are as comprehensive as possible and fit the requirements – such as benefitting
the wider community.
Cllr D Jack asked whether it was best to wait until after the seminar or apply now.
Cllr W Redford suggested that successful funding will not depend on how quickly the
application is in, rather which one is the best.
Cllr J Mackenzie stated that the footpath idea has ticked all the required boxes, especially as
people from Kenilworth will also use it.
Cllr R Hancox proposed that the Parish Council apply for a footpath. This was unanimously
agreed.
Cllr J Mackenzie wanted to know more about the claim process. When an application is
made will it be agreed and the money ring fenced?
Cllr R Hancox answered that HS2 Ltd will release funds if an application meets all the
requirements.
Cllr H Fryer commented that there is a possibility that the Parish Council may get funding
from elsewhere, for example Heritage Lottery Funding, and therefore develop the idea as an
extensive project?
Cllr R Hancox did point out that school children may be using the footpath which may not
be suitable with an historic project.
113. Amendment of standing orders
It was proposed not to amend the Council Standing Orders with regards to Delegated
Responsibility of the Clerk. Instead, the Council will request more time from the Planning
department so that planning decision can be made at public meetings. This was
unanimously agreed by the Parish Council.
136
114. Reports
Police report
No incidents in Stoneleigh or Ashow reported this month.
Cllr W Redford
Cllr W Redford confirmed that he is following the progress regarding the SLOW sign on
Rocky Lane. He confirmed that the contract is out and will report back to the Parish Council
when he has more news.
Cllr W Redford stated that he has been asked to look into the provision of broadband at
Stoneleigh Abbey, and is awaiting an update on this.
Cllr W Redford confirmed that a Health and Safety audit has been carried out on the B4115
by HS2 and approved by the Select Committee. There is therefore nothing further to be
done at this stage.
Warwickshire County Council has an agreement with HS2 to finish the planned road works,
including the bridge at the Stoneleigh junction by autumn 2018. If the bridge is completed,
HS2 traffic will not use Ashow Road. Warwickshire County Council are on schedule at the
moment, and it is down to Warwickshire County Council to get this done in time.
Cllr W Redford confirmed that there are traffic arrangements in place. No HS2 traffic can
come through Stoneleigh, and measures are being taken to ensure this, including vehicle
recognition etc. Contractors can be told not to come down roads in Stoneleigh, and are not
allowed over Stoneleigh Bridge.
Cllr H Fryer asked about the safety audit and enquired whether a local safety audit could
happen, separate from HS2?
Cllr J Astle agreed that Crewe Lane could be a local issue as well.
Cllr W Redford answered that nothing can be done as a health and safety audit has been
completed by HS2 Ltd.
Cllr J Mackenzie argued that this audit is only considering safety with regard to HS2.
Cllr W Redford will pursue this with the Road Safety Officer.
Cllr H Fryer asked if the Parish Council could have a copy of the Health and Safety audit
carried out by HS2.
The clerk is to contact Susan Bridges and ask for a copy of this.
137
Cllr P Redford
Cllr P Redford confirmed that council tax has risen due to government cutbacks and
reduced funding.
Cllr P Redford commented that traveller sites remain an ongoing issue, especially for
Warwick District Council as there is no transit site. Travellers can be moved if parked
illegally onto transit site but they will be asked for a bond.
Cllr N Harrington commented that providing the site is on public Warwick District Council
or Warwickshire County Council land, police can order travellers to move within 24 hours
to temporary or permanent sites, otherwise they have to leave the county.
Cllr N Harrington also stated that he is speaking to George Illingworth regarding whether
land belonging HS2 will be classed as private. If so, travellers could be removed within 24
hours. If the land is classed as public land, the police will require a court order which takes 7
to 10 working days.
Cllr P Redford stated that the police and Warwick District Council have limitations, and as
there are no specified sites for travellers, this is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Cllr N Harrington
Cllr N Harrington confirmed that he would defer his report until the planning section of the
agenda.
115. Public Session
Standing orders were suspended at 8:55 pm
Mr Bob Burdett addressed the council regarding planning application: W/17/0213 LB
Mr Burdett wanted to know more about the Greenbelt policy for villages. He had heard that
in 2015 all villages were to taken out of the Greenbelt so that Warwick District Council were
able to allocate some land against the housing policy and wanted to know whether this was
the case. Is Ashow considered a village for limited development?
Mr Burdett has had a meeting with the Planning and Conservation officer, regarding the
main house and conversion.
The Planning Officer looked at desirability. If the conversion is completed, the appearance
would make a large block of building. The Planning Officer suggested that the building
should start from behind the garaging, and attach to garaging less visible from road, in
keeping with Listed Building policies. The new building should be no higher than the
existing summer house
138
Mr Burdett stated that that the Council has changed the original conversion from ‘additional
to Abbey Farm’ and re classified it to an annexe to the house. Therefore this is now rated as
a separate building, with payable council rates.
The current planning application is for additional accommodation to the annexe.
There will be a new entrance along another lane by the farmer’s entrance. The Highways
Department have agreed that this is very safe as there is a bend in road. This would allow
parking for the new house and builder’s vehicles.
Cllr H Fryer commented that she was not aware that all villages had been taken out of the
Green belt.
Mr Bob Burdett stated that George Illingworth had agreed that the plan was that villages
will be taken out of the Green belt to allow limited development.
Cllr N Harrington stated that he will ask for an update on this.
Mr R Fryer confirmed that according to the local plan, all villages remain in the Green belt.
Cllr P Redford agreed that villages are in the Green belt and so there will be planning
restrictions.
Standing orders were re- instated at 9.03 pm.
116. Finance
a) Income / Expenditure
Income as shown in minute 104a £42348.97
Expenditure to 31st February 2017 (£14,859.56)
----------------
£27489.41
(Cheque of 23.60 Ashow Club yet to be cashed)
£27,513.01
==========
At Co-operative Bank plc, Birmingham
A/C 6101168500 (Current) £1044.15
A/C 6101168550 (Instant Access) £2061.64
A/C 6101168556 (14 Day Deposit) £24407.22
---------------
£27,513.01
139
Cheques paid in February
301318 S Windridge – Salary and expenses £490.24
Cheques to be authorised for March
301319 S Windridge – Salary and expenses £453
301320 Stoneleigh Village Hall £181
301321 Ashow Village Club £167.50
It was unanimously agreed to pay the cheques for March.
b) The Councillors were issued a copy of the precept. It was decided unanimously that after
the end of the financial year, a different method of recording the monthly budget would be
preferable, as the current method is not particularly clear.
c) To consider a request from the Clerk to attend a training session run by WALC. This was
unanimously agreed.
d) The Council was informed that the Transparency Fund Application was successful. The
Clerk is unable to confirm the total amount received as the funds have not come through
yet.
e) It was unanimously agreed to renew payroll services for 2017/ 2018. The cost has risen
from £78 to £101.
f) It was unanimously agreed to ring fence £1,500 in the new financial year, to put towards
future election costs.
g) The Parish Council considered a resolution for reserved funds to be applied to pay for
professional advice on planning application W/16/2345. Cllr H Fryer confirmed that Ian
Prosser from Stonehouse Planning has offered to write a letter on the Parish Council’s
behalf. The cost will be approximately £100, but £200 has been set aside to allow for the cost
of the letter.
140
Cllr D Jack asked whether this was normal practice with planning applications.
Cllr R Hancox confirmed that this is not normal practice, but the Parish Council are glad to
have found a planner who can contact the District Council on the Parish Council’s behalf, in
the case if complicated planning applications.
It was proposed by Cllr R Hancox and seconded by Cllr J Mackenzie and Cllr H Fryer to set
aside £200 for Ian Prosser to write a letter. It was agreed to discuss the contents of the letter
in the planning item of the agenda, after hearing a report from Cllr N Harrington.
117. Planning
Application No: W/16/2345
Description: Enabling residential development for 12 detached dwellings and 48
parking spaces (4x4 bedroom dwellings and 8x5 bedroom dwellings)
Address: Land adjoining Cunnery Site, Stoneleigh Abbey, Kenilworth, CV8 2LF
At this point Cllr N Harrington began his report.
Cllr N Harrington declared a non-pecuniary interest, due to a previous social engagement
with Mr Ian Prosser.
Cllr N Harrington stated that after visiting residents at Stoneleigh Abbey, he has ascertained
that residents of Grovehurst and the Cunnery at Stoneleigh Abbey have been told that they
must not object to this applications due to a covenant in the lease hold agreement. Cllr N
Harrington has sent letters to residents, offering to object on their behalf.
Cllr N Harrington approached Chris Elliott in February to argue that this covenant is not
acceptable.
Cllr N Harrington stated that there are problems with this planning application, as the
financial report is being prepared by La Salle, who, due to contractual arrangements with
Stoneleigh Abbey, cannot provide an unbiased report. Cllr N Harrington objects to this
application and feels that representation is needed on this. Cllr N Harrington reports that
Jeremy Wright MP supports this.
Cllr N Harrington also stated that solicitors representing Stoneleigh Abbey are not
responding to any questions being made, and that the application is being held confidential.
Cllr N Harrington attended a meeting with Gary fisher and Rob Young on Monday 6th
March and found out that La Salle have considered the application, and deemed it
unsatisfactory to be received. Mr Paul Harris, a resident from The Cunnery has submitted
Freedom of Information requests, which have been refused. It is therefore very difficult to
141
examine the proposal. Cllr N Harrington suggests that he and Jeremy Wright could
consider a judicial review if the planning application to go ahead. The application is against
the Code of Conduct as it is shrouded in secrecy, and needs to be more open.
Cllr J Mackenzie reported that she has looked at the finances of the Stoneleigh Abbey Trust,
and is questioning why this development is needed to raise money. For example, where
does the money from the wedding business go? There seems to be no explanation of the
accounts
Cllr J Astle commented that if the development is required for a financial reason, the Trust
should have to disclose their financial position.
Cllr J Mackenzie commented that the Trust should be asking for development to raise what
finances are needed. A wish list worth £2 million has been mentioned but the development
is raising £4-5 million.
It was agreed that at this stage, the best option for the Parish Council is to instruct a planner
to inform the District Council that the Parish Council cannot comment on the application,
especially as the Parish Council cannot see financial case.
Cllr J Astle questioned that the Parish Council do not seem to have enough information.
Cllr N Harrington confirmed that Warwick District Council cannot evaluate the planning
application because there is not enough information.
It was re – iterated that the Parish Council require Mr Ian Prosser to write to the District
Council on the Parish Council’s behalf to obtain further information.
Cllr N Harrington confirmed that the proposed letter does not leave the Parish Council pre
disposed – the Parish Council are simply stating that the planning application cannot be
evaluated without further information.
It was proposed by Cllr J Mackenzie and seconded by Cllr H Fryer and Cllr R Hancox, to
instruct Mr Prosser to send the letter to the District Council. (Letter annexed at pages 156 –
157).
The Clerk was asked to email Graham Leach at Warwick District Council to confirm the
rules and procedures regarding Declarations of Pecuniary Interest, in readiness for any
declarations which may have to be made during discussion of the planning application at a
subsequent meeting.
Cllr N Harrington left the meeting at 9:53 pm.
Application No: W/17/0213 LB
Description: Proposed new dwelling in garden area of Abbey Farm
Address: Land adjacent Abbey Farm, Ashow Road, Ashow, Kenilworth, CV8 2LE
142
Cllr J Mackenzie stated that she has spoken to the Planning officer. A very similar
application was received last year and was refused as the proposed development failed to be
considered as 'limited infill' and diminished the openness of the village.
The building is single storey this time, but has received objections from neighbours.
Cllr H Fryer stated that the Parish Council will be guided by the planning officer. As the
application has been refused previously, the question will be asked as to whether there is
enough of a change to the application.
It was agreed that the Council will liaise with the planning officer regarding the proposed
changes to the previous application, and if the application is not deemed to be materially
different to the previous application, the Council will object.
Application No: W/16/2054
Description: Proposed mixed use development to include 30 dwellings
Incorporating live-work accommodation and a business unit (Use Class B1) together with a
new access from Inchbrook Road (outline application including details of access)
Address: Land at, Common Lane, Common Lane Industrial Estate, including 33 Inchbrook
Road, Kenilworth
Cllr R Hancox agreed to look into this in more detail. The clerk will also confirm whether
the Parish Council are required to comment, as the development is outside the Parish
Boundary.
Application No: W/17/0311
Description: Change of use of part of building to form restaurant/cafe and retail shop
(A1/A3) and to open up to existing adjacent Farmers Fayre restaurant; insertion of a new
window to replace an existing doorway on the east elevation.
Address: Unit 67 4th Street, Avenue M, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth,
Closing date 23rd March
No observations
143
Progress of Planning Applications
Application No: W/16/2236
Description: Front and Side Extension to existing Dwelling
Address: Penns House, Ashow Road, Ashow, Kenilworth, CV8 2LE
The Council supports the application, but notes that the Conservation Officer has
requested a change to brick construction. The Council request that the brick match is
approved before construction commences.
Planning permission has been granted, but no works shall commence on the construction
of the development hereby permitted until samples of the external facing materials to be
used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Application No: W/16/2304
Description: Erection of a single storey rear extension to replace existing conservatory.
Address: Austen House, Grovehurst Park, Stoneleigh, Kenilworth, CV8 2XR
No observations
Application No: W/17/0023
Description: Single storey rear extension
Address: 4 Furzen Hill Cottage, Leicester Lane, Stoneleigh, Leamington Spa
No observations
This application has been refused.
Application No: W/16/2032
Description: Retrospective removal of car port and conversion to habitable space
Address: The Barn adjacent Park Farm House, Stareton Lane, Stoneleigh, CV8 2LL
Cllr J Mackenzie has spoken to the Planning Officer and has been informed that this
application will be approved.
It was decided that after receiving further information and advice from the Planning Officer,
the Parish Council would withdraw its previous objection and submit no observations.
144
118. Correspondence
The Clerk has received an email from Graham Leach at Warwick District Council regarding
the separation of Stoneleigh and Ashow Parish Council. Emails from Graham Leach re
splitting the Council.
If this is still a required outcome, this must be included as an agenda item for a subsequent
Ordinary PC meeting. The Parish Council can then make a formal proposal for the Council
to be split as part of the district wide boundary review.
It was agreed to include this on a subsequent meeting agenda.
Cllr R Hancox reported that he had been in contact with Cllr W Redford –regarding signs for
Stoneleigh Village Church. The County Council have been asked if they would consider
providing some, as part of the rules for the provision of the grant for the roof repairs are
around making the church more available to the community, and the Church feels that
better direction signing would help with this.
Cllr W Redford has replied saying that Warwickshire County Council cannot provide this
but suggesting that the Parish Council contacts the Community Forum. Cllr R Hancox has
asked for a quotation from Nuneaton Signs which once received will form part of a bid for
funds from the forum in partnership with the Church.
Cllr R Hancox has also been in contact with Cllr W Redford regarding verge over riding. On
one side of the land called The Green in Stoneleigh there had been considerable damage
done to the private land on which sits The Old Forge. The resident is looking for the County
Council to do some highway works to prevent further damage and repair the damage
already done. Cllr W Redford has passed this to an engineer who has written back
suggesting little can be done but before they can look in to the matter any further, as there is
a need to establish ownership of the land in question. There is a possibility the land is part of
the highway and not private. Cllr R Hancox will speak to the resident regarding this.
Cllr R Hancox also informed the Council that he has been in contact with the police,
Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council, as a result of a resident
complaint regarding the parking of cars in the hammer head provided at the end of Church
Lane. The hammerhead is for services vehicles, delivery vehicles and residents to safely turn
around so as not to have to reverse all the way back to the Church. The police have replied
with a few suggestions, including holding a residents meeting to discuss the issue, applying
for a parking restriction etc. Warwick District Council have also said there is little they can
do. Cllr R Hancox has relayed this back to the resident and will await a response.
Cllr R Hancox provided an update regarding the ragwort growing on the A46 junction
roundabout, which Cllr D Jack asked Cllr Hancox about at the meeting on 9th February.
145
Cllr Hancox has been informed that ragwort is an extremely valuable native plant with some
species being entirely reliant on its presence. Therefore it must not be wiped out completely
but we there is a need to control it around livestock.
Cllr R Hancox has contacted the Environmental and Soft Estate Teams, asking what actions
are planned for this area of ragwort.
At the meeting on 9th February, Cllr W Redford reported that due to the high probability of a
large amount of upcoming housing development, the Parish Council must be aware about
making S106 funding applications. Cllr W Redford recommended that the Parish Council
have a list of community projects which require funding. Cllr R Hancox suggested that the
list of HS2 projects put forward by the community could be used for this purpose.
119. Questions to Chairman
There were no questions to the Chairman.
120. Meetings
The next Ordinary Meeting of the Parish Council will be held on Thursday 13th April 2017 at
Stoneleigh Village Hall, Stoneleigh at 7.00 p.m.
Cllr W Redford and P Redford will be unable to attend.
121. Closure
The meeting was closed at 10.21 pm
146
Warwick District Local
Plan Stoneleigh and Ashow Parish
Council
9-3-17
147
What I will cover • Update on progress • Headlines of main proposals • Closer to home: Stoneleigh and
Ashow – Kings Hill – East of Kenilworth – Stoneleigh Park – Sub-regional Employment Site – A46 and transport
148
Update on Progress • Local Plan submitted - Jan 2015 • Initial hearings – May 2015 • Plan found unsound – June 2015 • Plan suspended and
modifications prepared – July 2015 to May 2016
• Modifications submitted - June 2016
• Local Plan hearings – Sept to Dec 2016
• Consultation on Inspectors Modifications – March to April 2017
• Potential Local Plan adoption – July, Aug 2017
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Stoneleigh and Ashow
Joint Parish Council
Clerk: Mrs S Windridge
Monday, 13 March 2017
Mr Ian Prosser
Dear Mr Prosser,
Re: Planning application W/16/2345
Further to your previous correspondence with Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint Parish Council regarding
the above planning application, please accept this letter as confirmation that the Parish Council
would like you write to Warwick District Council on the Parish Council’s behalf.
Please could the following points be submitted to Warwick District Council:
1) As the statutory consultee representing the local community, Stoneleigh and Ashow Joint
Parish Council would expect to be given access to all of the information submitted with the
planning application to enable a proper assessment to be made of the costs and benefits to the
local community.
2) The Parish Council sees no reason why it should not be permitted to consider all of the
application details in a closed session, not open to the public, in the same way that the District
Council will consider the proposal.
3) With the information currently available to the Parish Council, it can only object to the
development for the following reasons:-
a) The development is in the Green Belt where, in accordance with the provisions of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NNPF) there is a presumption against this type of development
unless there are Very Special Circumstances (VSC). Such VSC have not been adequately
demonstrated.
157
b) The development would be located within a listed historic parkland setting and will have a
deleterious effect upon it due to its urban form. This is not offset by the existing housing
development on the adjacent land as suggested in the Design and Access Statement. This existing
housing development itself, was enabling development permitted in exceptional circumstances.
To accept that the quality of the enabling development may be reduced or is more acceptable
because of this existing enabling development would set a dangerous precedent whereby further
development would be difficult to resist.
c) The proposed development does not accord with the guidance contained within “Enabling
Developments and the Conservation of Significant Places 2012” (The Guidance) referenced by the
applicants. It has not been demonstrated that sufficient subsidy is not available from any other
sources, that it is the minimum amount to secure the future of the place and its form would
minimise harm to other public interests. In this regard it is noted that the enabling development
would raise up to £4 million pounds but that the heritage deficit is less than £2.5 million.
d) The Guidance makes clear that enabling development is required to provide for all restoration
work of the associated historic asset and to ensure its long term future. This would, therefore,
have been a requirement when the last enabling development was permitted. It does not,
therefore, appear to be appropriate that a further development, purporting to be enabling, should
be permitted contrary to normal planning policy.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your assistance in this matter, and look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Richard Hancox
Chairman of the Parish Council
